Will Kate and Anthony return for Season 5?

With Season 5 over halfway through filming there still has not been an official cast list released by Netflix, though Shondaland and Netflix have announced three new cast members. Some other cast members, such as Hugh Sachs, Emma Naomi, Ruth Gemmell and Claudia Jessie have been sighted at filming locations in London by fans, and Nicola Coughlan has been able to officially confirm her return. Despite these sightings, and the confirmation from Nicola of her return, there has been no such indication that the Viscount and Viscountess will be returning for the fifth season. Prior to season 4 there was a similar silence around just the return of Simone Ashley (Kate Bridgerton) and it took Simone herself having to confirm she would return in an interview, but for season 5 there has not only been silence from Netflix and Shondaland, but also less definitive responses from Simone Ashley when asked. Jonathan Bailey has not spoken on any potential return this year either.  

Image Credit: Netflix

Both Simone Ashley and Jonathan Bailey have continually reiterated their commitment to Bridgerton, and the characters of Kate and Anthony Bridgerton, when asked however, neither have stated if they are returning for season 5 as yet. The speculation of Kate and Anthony’s return began among a small group of Bridgerton fans in April after Simone Ashley appeared on The Louis Theroux Podcast where Simone indicated that she had (at the time of recording) not received a script for season 5, despite filming already being underway. The speculation has intensified after a recent interview with Refinery29 Australia where Simone was again non-committal about her potential return for season 5, saying that “Bridgerton will always feel like home…” and that she is “grateful for everything it’s given me, and for the audience who’ve embraced Kate so wholeheartedly.” Simone went on to say that she loves seeing where the story goes each season. For many fans this sounded final, and as a confirmation she will not be returning to the show, and with no indication that she has been on set for season 5 her departure from the show, however unwillingly, appears highly likely. Some in the fandom have suggested that Simone may not be allowed to say if she is returning, which seems odd when Nicola has openly stated she is returning, as have the season 4 leads Luke Thompson and Yerin Ha.

If Kate and Anthony are not returning then Bridgerton will again be under the spotlight for their optics, especially if they keep Violet and the unmarried children living in Bridgerton House.  These optics were touched on in my post last week which you can read here, however, to reiterate the message, it is not a good look for the production to continue having Violet - a white woman - running Kate’s household. But adding to those optics is the way that the show has treated the introduction, and integration, of Eliott versus Edmund. Elliott was first seen at the end of season 3, then again in season 4, and it is speculated that Elliott will be joined by a sibling in season 5, however, we have only seen Edmund in season 4, and if Kate and Anthony are not in season 5 then we will not be seeing him again, nor any of his siblings. This is part of a pattern the production have shown with regards to the only South Asian lead, and now a mixed South Asian child, and for a production that craves continual praise for its diverse casting to write out the darker skinned Viscountess and her mixed South Asian child, but continue to keep her white in-laws in her home the optics look worse than ever as the pattern emerges.  

Image Credit: Netflix

So will Kate and Anthony be back? It is unclear, and cannot be said one way or another with any degree of confidence, but all signs are suggesting that at the very least Kate will not be returning, there is still the possibility that Anthony may do so without his wife and child. However, perhaps we should not be focussed on if Kate and Anthony will return, but how will the production continue to have Bridgerton House at its centre without the Viscount and Viscountess?

Netflix did not respond to a request for comment on whether Kate and Anthony would be returning.   

Throwback Thursday: Netflix Erasure of Kate Bridgerton with "Just Anthony" highlighted

This post was originally posted on 7 September 2025

Netflix have not responded to any requests for comment on this post.  

On 29 August this article was published on the Netflix Tudum site celebrating Jonathan Bailey's best moments as Anthony Bridgerton, including three moments from season 2 that included his onscreen love interest played by Simone Ashley.  The fact that these three moments were included, yet in the introductory paragraph Simone Ashley, and her character Kate Bridgerton (formerly Sharma) was not mentioned. Of itself it is not egregious considering that the article was about Jonathan Bailey, but the author included mention of Simon and Daphne, and Penelope and Colin, so that when it came to season 2 the author referred to "just Anthony Bridgerton" the exclusion of Kate (and Simone Ashley) was obvious, and seemed very deliberate.  The author clearly framed the season 1 and season 3 leads as equal in their stories, but for the season 2 protagonists the author dismissed Kate's importance to Anthony's story and love story.  That she eventually included Kate in a later paragraph does not redeem the author, but rather reinforces that the author - and by extension Netflix - does not value Kate's (and Simone's) contribution to the story of season 2, with Kate being mentioned almost as an afterthought.  

Screenshot of Netflix Tudum Article

If this was a one off situation then it probably would not have garnered quite the same notice in the fandom, but the exclusion of Kate as a character, and Simone Ashley as an actress, is an ongoing issue with both Netflix and Shondaland, leading many to believe that both Netflix and Shondaland have (at best) a problem with Kate (or Simone), or (at worst) have an active dislike of - or contempt for - Kate as a character (or Simone as an actress). Neither perception is good for Netflix or Shondaland. To continually exclude Kate from articles on Bridgerton, especially when directly connected to Anthony, and to continually exclude Simone Ashley from promotional materials, makes their claims of diversity and representation ring hollow, she is after all the Viscountess Bridgerton and was the season 2 lead. The continual exclusion of Simone Ashley (and Kate) from promotional content reinforces the perception that neither Netflix nor Shondaland prioritise representation of women of colour, or specifically the representation of South Asian women of colour. But worse, the continual exclusion of her by Netflix and Shondaland leads to other media outlets excluding her - or at least diminishing her importance in the show when compared to white counterparts. 

Image Credit: Netflix

One example is this article by gossip site Just Jared, where they are discussing the returning and new cast for Bridgerton season 4. In this we see that of the main cast members returning Kate is the only one that does not have a character description from Netflix, suggesting that Netflix does not care enough about Kate to include a character description for her. It should also be noted that there is no surname for the character of Kate provided, whilst the other returning leads (who are all white), have surnames listed for their characters. What does this say about how Netflix views the first women of colour lead in Bridgerton? Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern and three times is a choice, and to exclude, or diminish, the only dark skinned South Asian lead in Bridgerton is a choice that Netflix make over and over again. In doing this Netflix, and Shondaland, continually alienate and anger fans, most women of colour and many of South Asian heritage, they are telling these fans that they are not important, and that for them the South Asian representation is not important, further it tells everyone that Netflix prioritises white characters, and white stories over that of South Asians, meanwhile they will still use their South Asian Viscountess in promotion to entice those fans. Netflix's actions suggest that for them representation is superficial and meaningless. 

Image Credit: Netflix

The appeal of Bridgerton is the love stories, but you cannot have a love story with only one partner, so to omit one of the two partners in a love story diminishes the growth of both partners in the story. In the opening paragraph of the Tudum article, the author not only erased Kate as being important to the season 2 love story, but diminshed Anthony's arc by lessening the contribution of his screen partner, something she did not do for other lead couples. The fact that Kate is played by a dark skinned South Asian woman indicates a wider issue where women of colour - particularly dark skinned women of colour - are treated as incidental in the storytelling rather than essential to it, something that we see over and over when it comes to Kate Bridgerton. 

Image Credit: Netflix

The author's wording may have been intended as a clever way to show that Jonathan Bailey's performance as Anthony was the focus of the article, it did not come across that way to many reading the article. By referencing the season 1 and season 3 couple as a pair, each equal in their stories, the "just Anthony" line worked more to suggest that Simone Ashley's portrayal of Kate was unimportant in Anthony's story. We cannot talk about Jonathan Bailey's portrayal of Anthony without discussing Simone Ashley's portrayal of Kate, but this is what Netflix did, and has done, while using Kate (and Simone Ashley) to promote to the demographic that she represents, which diminshes the claims of diversity and representation in Bridgerton by Netflix and Shondaland. 

As a result of the backlash of this article Netflix Tudum updated their article, however, instead of updating the article with the inclusion of Kate Bridgerton (Simone Ashley) in the first paragraph they have merely removed the writer's name and given the byline to 'Tudum Staff'.  While I understand that this was potentially done to protect the writer from harassment, (I understand some fans have posted her linkedIn details and have said they contacted her through that), I believe that this has made Netflix look worse. I am not saying the writer deserves harassment because she does not, however, by removing her name and replacing it with a generic 'Tudum Staff' Netflix have made it appear that Netflix are protecting a white (or lighter skinned) woman whilst still diminishing and erasing a darker skinned woman of colour. 

I am not saying Netflix were wrong in trying to protect a freelance writer that does work for them, but if they listened enough to understand fans were angry with the writer why not fix their glaring omission in the first paragraph? As it stands Netflix have still tried to erase, and diminish, a woman of colour in an article where White women are given equal standing to their screen partners.  Netflix need to do better. 

Note: I requested comment on this article from both the author of the article and Netflix, neither have responded. 

Why Violet should finally move into a Dower House in Season 5

Within aristocratic families the transition from one titleholder to the next could be messy and complicated, or simple and accompanied by symbolic gestures. One such gesture is the Dowager moving out of the main estate residence into a dower house, thus making way for the wife of the new titleholder to step up into her role within the household. Moving into a dower house allowed a Dowager to retain her position in society whilst also symbolising the passing from one generation to the next and the transition of power within the household. Season 5 offers an ideal opportunity for Bridgerton to bring this tradition into the core of its storytelling through Violet moving out of Bridgerton House into a dower house. Not only would this adhere to historical convention, it would also provide the production the opportunity to solve a growing narrative issue with the absence of Anthony and Kate.  

Image Credit: Netflix

A dower house is a residence separate to the main estate properties that was occupied by the Dowager. The residence allowed the Dowager to maintain her own household whilst not impinging on the wife of the new title holder. The timing of a Dowager's move would depend on the status of the new heir, if he was unmarried at the time of inheritance she may remain at the main family home until he married, however, if the heir was married then she would move soon after he inherited. The move to the dower house was symbolic of the transition within the family, and an outward acknowledgement that the Dowager no longer was the authority within the main household.  

Image Credit: Netflix

Within the world of Bridgerton it was right that Violet initially remained in the main homes of Aubrey Hall and Bridgerton House as Anthony was young and unmarried when he inherited. Now that Anthony has married, and has started his own family with Kate, Violet should have moved into a dower house, however, at the end of season 4 this still had not happened. 

By not moving Violet into a dower house, the show has failed to visually represent the transition from Violet to Kate being the Viscountess. By rights this should have happened in season 3, with the final episode being the ideal moment, however, the show has continued on as if Anthony never married, with Violet continuing to be the Viscountess. For a show that normally utilises visual storytelling well this was a missed opportunity to establish that the production recognises Kate as the Viscountess, a Bridgerton, and as belonging in Bridgerton House. Violet moving out of Bridgerton House would also signal a healing in the relationship between Violet and Anthony, that Violet no longer needs to hover over him, and that she trusts and respects who he is now as well as his choice of Kate as a wife, and that she respects Kate as the Viscountess. 

Image Credit: Netflix

Keeping Violet at the centre of Bridgerton House the show has created a blurring of the lines for viewers between the Viscountess (Kate) and the Dowager Viscountess (Violet), but also signalled a disrespect or contempt for the character of Kate. Moving Violet into a dower house in season 5 would allow the production to complete a transitional arc for Violet, signal clearly that Bridgerton House is Kate and Anthony's, even if they are not present in all episodes, and show Kate the same respect they have shown other characters who have married.  

Further, by introducing a dower house for Violet, rather than keeping her at Bridgerton House, the production could resolve some of the awkwardness of having much of the Bridgerton storylines taking place in Bridgerton House but Kate and Anthony not being present, an issue that was glaringly obvious in season 4.  In addition the closure of Halton House, and being unable to have scenes in the iconic entry hall of Bridgerton House, season 5 presents the opportune time for Violet to finally move into a dower house allowing Kate to be the Viscountess in practice not just name. Bridgerton House is no longer Violet's home, it is the home where Kate and Anthony will be growing their family, and it is time that the Bridgerton production recognised this.

Throwback Thursday: The continual disrespect for Kathani, Lady Bridgerton

This post was originally published on 12 March 2025

In 2021 Simone Ashley was cast as Kate Sharma, the main female character opposite Jonathan Bailey's Anthony Bridgerton for season 2 of Bridgerton.  By the end of the season we find out that Kate and Anthony have married (despite not seeing their wedding onscreen), thus making Kate the Viscountess (as called by Anthony in the epilogue scene).  In the very first episode of season 3 Kate is directly called Lady Bridgerton, which makes it baffling as to why in official Netflix articles for both season 3, and now season 4, Netflix has referred to Kate by her unmarried name.  In contrast to this, Penelope was referred to as Penelope Bridgerton in official Netflix media prior to season 3 being relased, and again in official Netflix media for season 4.  This is just the latest in a number of issues with the way that Netflix, the Bridgerton production, and Shondaland, have promoted, written for, or spoken about Kate as a character, and Simone Ashley as an actress.  This subject has become bigger than one post so over this year I will be doing a series of posts looking at different aspects of the disparity in treatment from Netflix, the production and Shondaland between Simone Ashley - and her character of Kate - and the other female leads and their characters. 

Image Credit: Netflix

When the initial cast list was released by Netflix for season 4, Simone Ashley did not appear on it, leading many to believe that she would not be returning, despite having stated that she wanted to return.  This idea that Netflix did not want to have The Viscountess in the show, especially when they failed to complete her story arc in season 3, was mindboggling, but not surprising.  It took Netflix over 4 months before Jess Brownell announced that Simone Ashley was returning at the Valentine's Day event - after Jonathan Bailey  had filmed, which has led to more questions about her appearance in season 4.  Does she have scenes with her onscreen husband? Will we see her baby? Or will we again be left with an incomplete storyline and very little of Kate? Making it seem yet again that Kate is not a member of the Bridgerton family, let alone Lady Bridgerton.  It should also be said that many online noted that Jess Brownell did not look excited, interested, or happy that she had to announce Kate's return to Bridgerton which has left some questioning if she was forced into announcing it, or was she forced into having Kate return?  

Valentine's Day also saw official Netflix articles about season 4 release, and immediately it was noted that the character of Kate was listed as Kate Sharma, not Kate Bridgerton nor as Lady Bridgerton, but rather by the character's unmarried name.  This in itself would not have been a problem if it was not for the fact that the characters of Penelope and Francesca were both listed  with their married names (Bridgerton and Stirling respectively), so why the difference? It is hard to know, but it is not hard to miss that Penelope and Francesca are both white characters, whilst Kate is not, I am not saying that was the reason, but the optics of it are not good for Netflix especially when other evidence is taken into account (that will be discussed in other posts where this one will be referred back to).  Kate was married by the end of season 2, two seasons prior to the one currently being filmed, while Penelope and Francesca both married towards the end of season 3, yet they have the respect of being listed with their married names whilst Kate is still listed with her unmarried name.  To some in the fandom this is dismissed as a minor matter and not a slight, however, what this indicates is that Netflix does not see Kate as a Bridgerton, or even as a main character, and it diminishes her role within the show and the family, while they are saying that the white female characters are more important.  Kate is The Viscountess Bridgerton, but reduced to being an outsider, while Penelope has immediately become a member of the titular family, and that Kate is also a dark skinned woman of colour presents a view of Netflix that contributes to the negative perception about Bridgerton and Netflix that some fans have. 

This could be overlooked as an error if it was a one off, however, this is not.  Netflix, and Shondaland, have shown a pattern of diminishing both Kate as a character and Simone Ashley as an actress (many of which will be addressed through this year), and the author of this article previously wrote an article in 2023 ahead of season 3, initially omitting Simone Ashley as a returning character (though she had been seen on location filming), then adding her but referring to her character by her unmarried name only changing it to Bridgerton after an online backlash and some online publications highlighting this in article.  This was not the only slight against the character of Kate by Netflix or Shondaland , in an article in 2024 on Shondaland's website, a caption for two images names Penelope as 'Penelope Bridgerton' (in an image from episode 2) whilst Kate is named as 'Kate Sharma, sending the message that Shondaland views Penelope as more of a Bridgerton than Kate, who is The Viscountess, whilst Penelope was still a Featherington at that point in the story. I realise that for some the idea of being upset over how a fictional character is discussed may be seen as unimportant, I view it as something that we should be concerned about, as often the entertainment media we consume will reflect the values of those producing the media as well as wider societal values. We, as viewers, will form our view of the organisational culture of companies like Shondaland and Netflix via the media they produce - and that includes the articles they choose to write for their websites, the media releases they choose to send out, and the way they choose to promote their products. 

In these articles Netflix and Shondaland are telling young women of colour - specifically young South Asian women - that they are not equal to their white counterparts and that Netflix (and Shondaland) has no care for them compared to their white counterparts.  For many it is these little details that matter, because if Netflix (or Shondaland) has no care, or interest, in the small details for their South Asian character in Bridgerton, then what care or interest do they have for their South Asian audiences beyond taking their money?  For some of these fans the diversity that Netflix and Shondaland like to talk up and promote in Bridgerton feels very performative as opposed to substantative, and they send the message they don't really care about diversity or their diverse actors.  

The Visual Erasure of Kate Bridgerton: What Bridgerton House says about belonging

Since the beginning of the show Bridgerton and Featherington Houses have been presented as visual representations of the families who live in them, and the lady who runs them. In season 4 we saw the aesthetics in the Featherington House evolve providing a visual representation of Penelope's new position as both a Bridgerton, and ostensibly the lady of the house in Featherington House, as the mother of the new Lord Featherington. In Bridgerton House there has been no change in the aesthetics beyond Kate and Anthony's private rooms, providing no visual representation of Kate's role not only as a Bridgerton, but as the one running Bridgerton House as The Viscountess Bridgerton. This difference in how the two houses are decorated may seem trivial, something not worth discussing, but the difference in these spaces sends a strong message from the production team to the viewers.  

Featherington House Entryway S4 | Image Credit: Netflix

Featherington House was very quickly redesigned for season 4, following Penelope's marriage to Colin, not just in their private rooms but throughout the house, with the entry hall being the most obvious. Alongside the Featherington Yellow the set design team have incorporated blue tones, a colour that has been associated with the Bridgertons since the beginning of the show. Thus, incorporating blue into the main rooms of the Featherington household is significant, it communicates that Penelope is no longer just a Featherington but is now also a Bridgerton, but further that Featherington House is Penelope's house and her domain.

Bridgerton House S1 | Image Credit: Netflix

Bridgerton House, however, tells a different story. After Kate married Anthony, becoming The Viscountess Bridgerton, Bridgerton House outside of Kate and Anthony's private rooms remained - and continue to remain - free from any visual representation of Kate's status, or even her existence in the Bridgerton family. Whilst we saw a redesign of Kate and Anthony's bedroom and Kate's study in season 3, to include some of her cultural influences, this inclusion of Kate's personality and culture has not translated through to the rest of Bridgerton House. 

Bridgerton House S4 | Image Credit: Netflix

This may seem like it isn't that big of a deal, or not that serious, after all not every set needs to be redesigned each season. It is important to note here that Bridgerton is known for using its sets almost as a character in themselves, and the sets and locations form part of the narrative of the season, and Bridgerton House is no exception. Bridgerton House centres both the Bridgerton family and the Viscountcy, the woman who runs Bridgerton House holds a position of power in the family, and in the Ton. In season 2 it was made clear that Anthony's wife would be running the house as the Viscountess, however in recent series - since Anthony's marriage - we see Violet still functioning as the primary female authority within Bridgerton House. Violet continues as the hostess for the household, centred whilst the household runs around her, however Kate is the Viscountess and her presence is not felt within the home that is now hers.

This absence of Kate's presence was very noticeable in season 4 where much of the main love story of Benedict and Sophie took place within the bounds of Bridgerton House. Within this storyline we see Kate's in-laws still centred within the house whilst Kate was absent or pushed to the preiphery, barely noticed or acknowledged as the rightful female authority within the house. The pushing aside of Kate is not only presented via her absence within the family's acknowledgement or consciousness, but also through the visual statements made in the set design through the lack of any visual representation of Kate within Bridgerton House, it still feels very much like Violet's house not Kate's house. It is Violet that controls the space, it is Kate's in-laws that occupy the space, and it is Kate - as the Viscountess - who is pushed to the side with no visible presence in her home.  

I began by talking of the redesign of Featherington House, and it is this contrast with how the production very quickly updated and redesigned the space for Penelope but failed to do so for Kate that reveals their priorities within the narrative storytelling in Bridgerton. The issue is not that Featherington House has evolved to provide the visual acknowledgement of Penelope's new position in the household, but rather that Bridgerton House has not evolved to provide that same acknowledgement of Kate's position. This leads to the question of why is Penelope's position in the Bridgerton family given visual representation in Featherington House, but Kate's position in the Bridgerton family is invisible within Bridgerton House? 

This is about more than two characters whose homes have been presented differently, it feeds directly into the ideas and practicalities of representation in media, and in Bridgerton specifically. Bridgerton is known for its diverse casting, but they do not follow through with centring the characters who are not white, they do not give equal importance, or equal consideration to their non white characters. Kate is the only South Asian in the cast with a significant role, yet she has been stripped of any presence within the home that is hers, she has been pushed to the side and made invisible within the family she has married into, whilst Penelope - who is white - has not.  Penelope is included as a Bridgerton, Kate is not, and this is reflected in the spaces they occupy and present to the world.  

Kate Bridgerton S4 | Image Credit: Netflix

The fact that Featherington House was redesigned to provide visual clues of Penelope's inclusion within the Bridgerton family show that Bridgerton understands how important the set design is in communicating the idea of a character's identity, position and belonging. This is why the absence of Kate's personality and cultural identity from Bridgerton House is so telling.  For a production that understands the visual storytelling as much as the oral storytelling the absence of Kate's influence in Bridgerton House is telling a story to the viewer, but is it the story they want to tell?